openshift on Digi Hunch

Computing services: from PaaS to Serverless

Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:31:00 -0400

Silicon Valley startups in mid-2000s likely do not run their own IT operations (i.e. renting their own data centre spaces, purchasing their own rack-mounted servers). Since the launch of EC2, AWS has been renting extra computing capacity to those startups, in the IaaS model. The leased infrastructure requires maintenance work, and AWS realized that many of these customers cannot afford specialized database admins, network admins, storage admins, or even server admins. As a result, they created a handful of managed services aiming to cut out admin overhead and let their customer focus on coding. This is how Platform-as-a-service (PaaS) came about.

Let’s take a look at what are exactly operation activities.

Ops activities

IT operation team manages server provisioning, installation of operating system, tuning performance, configuring auto scaling and load balancing, configure networking and storage systems, etc. Networking can be so complex that many infrastructure teams have a dedicated Network Operation Center (NOC), who along with security team, manages key aspects of networking, such as segmentation, router configuration, load balancing, firewall configuration.

For client-server application, the client-side code will make outgoing connections, utilizing the TCP/IP stack on the host through an ephemeral port. The server-side code has to be wrapped as a service. A daemon ensures the process running this service stays up and listens to a TCP port in order to respond to request by invoking the functions. Application team usually assumes these activities.

If database is involved, then the patching, upgrade, replication, data protection are all Ops problems. If storage is involved, then Ops has to manage mass data accumulated over years, the integration between storage and database and applications, performance, replication, etc. Some larger organizations have full-time database administrator and storage administrators.

Then comes container. Containers have their benefits but it increases the operation overhead by an order of magnitude. Running container application at scale warrants its own platform, most likely a Kubernetes platform, to address all of the problems above again at the cluster level. Some organization created platform team to manage container and VM platforms.

It is the Ops, that turns functional code into a running business. It is also the Ops, that becomes a pain point as a startup scales. With IaaS and PaaS models, AWS managed to convince many small businesses to delegate their IT operations to AWS. This is the humble start of cloud computing.

Elastic Beanstalk

At first, I wasn’t too impressed with Elastic Beanstalk, since it abstracts away too many details. However, I later realized that it has been surprisingly popular in the developer community, especially with individual developers and SMBs. It simplifies deployment to the point that their users don’t need to know other AWS services, allowing them to focus on coding application logic.

You configure Applications and Environments (one application may have multiple environments). In the Environment layer, you can specify code platform (e.g. Python 3.8 on 64bit Amazon Linux 2, Java, Go, PHP, Ruby) and even container platform (Docker on EC2 or ECS). Behind the scene, Elastic Beanstalk configures EC2 instances, Elastic Load Balancers, etc on the selected VPC and integrate with logging and monitoring services. In the console, Elastic Beanstalk exposes a list of configurations options (e.g. AMI, instance type). This centralized configuration page is dummied down for those who don’t want to deal with Ops.

The downside of Elastic Beanstalk is it takes away a lot of flexibility. Many developers find Elastic Beanstalk limit their choices of deployment, as their applications scale. Elastic Beanstalk does not suit for applications that demand extensive operation efforts. Its niche market is individual developers and SMB. Few enterprise applications run on Elastic Beanstalk.

Containerization with ECS and EKS

When we containerize an application, we build container images. Then we run these images with container runtimes, is a core feature of container platform. Container platform also provides orchestration engine since we frequently take containers up and down. In addition, container platform provides mechanisms for container networking and storage.

AWS has a couple options for container platform. ECS (Elastic Container Service) came out earlier. It organizes a group of EC2 instances as a cluster. You can manage autoscaling, networking, and persistent storage (EFS, FSx etc) on ECS. EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service) is the managed Kubernetes service by AWS. Just like AKS, it provides a managed control plane along with computing nodes.

I see ECS as a proprietary and simplified container platform, and Kubernetes as an open-source standard for full-fledged container platform with an entire ecosystem. EKS includes an upstream-certified Kubernetes distribution with a set of tools specific to AWS. Since Kubernetes is the de-facto standard container platform, I prefer EKS by default, unless I can justify the use of ECS. In fact, ECS and Kubernetes have many concepts in common. For example, a “Task” in ECS is equivalent to a Pod in Kubernetes.

Whether it is ECS or EKS, right-sizing the computing node group is always challenging especially when the application traffic load is irregular. AWS Fargate is a technology that provides on-demand, right-sized compute capacities. It works with ECS and EKS. When integrated with EKS, we delegate the node management (e.g. scaling) to Fargate and forget about sizing the node pool.

Using ECS and Fargate involves quite a bit of configurations. To simplify that, we can use App Runner, which builds ECS cluster and uses Fargate to execute the container behind the scenes. App Runner helps client in a way similar to Elastic Beanstalk, but concentrate on Container workload.

Serverless with Lambda and API Gateway

The services above have their limitations when it comes to scaling capability. First, they cannot scale to zero. You still pay for idling resources. Also, it is not easy to find the optimal autoscaling setting. Lambda and API Gateway together solves these challenges. AWS refers to it as serverless, which has since become a buzzword. To understand what it is, let’s examine two concepts:

Function as a Service: service with the ability to execute code on demand. Users only pay for code execution time and do not care where the underlying runtime is
Backend as a Service: service with the ability to listen to a port and respond to web request

Lambda itself is a function as a service. Triggered by events, it only incurs a charge when it’s invoked. It does not stay up and listening to a TCP port for incoming web request, as does a backend service. In order to act as a backend, Lambda needs to pair up with API gateway. In this configuration, API gateway listens to a web request, and it fires an event to trigger the execution of Lambda function. Lambda and API gateway together makes a backend as a service. In AWS, the coupling of API gateway and Lambda function ensures an idle service does not incur computing cost.

Since Lambda supports many types of events as trigger, it is also used in event-driven architecture, either standalone or from a VPC. Under the hood, Lambda runs code in a container (with a quick startup time relative to a VM).

Developers can release Lambda code by uploading zip package to S3 bucket, or just packaging code into container image. For deployment, apart from AWS console and CLI, one can leverage CloudFormation, SAM (serverless application model), or CDK.

Lambda vs Fargate

Both Lambda and Fargate are serverless capabilities, at least from a marketing perspective. Both can be used to back web service but there are differences. They provision computing resource at different granularity.

In a web service, the execution duration of a Lambda function is the response duration to an API request, in terms of seconds. While the server is waiting for a request, there is no usage of the computing resource so you’re not paying for waiting for a request. However, this also creates the delay of cold-start, especially when the code size is large. There are several ways to optimize the cold start (e.g. SnapStart for Java), but none of those can completely get rid of the cold-start delay with a once-after-a-while request. A light GET call could take 5 seconds with cold start.

On the Fargate side, the resource provisioning is based on container lifecycle, instead of request lifecycle. As a result, you’re still paying for wait time, and it is not per-request billing. Since the container remains up, your request is not going to experience the cold-start if it’s been idle for a while. Although, Fargate saves you from the effort to right-sizing the computing nodes for container execution, it is not quite the idea of “scale-to-zero when idle” by itself.

Serverless Architecture

In the white paper AWS Serverless Multi-Tier Architectures with Amazon API Gateway and AWS Lambda, AWS advocates the serverless architecture as a modern alternative to the traditional widely adopted three-tier architecture (presentation, logic and data tiers). In the three tier architecture, the scalability of three tier are managed separately. The modern serverless architecture that AWS whitepaper proposes uses API Gateway and Lambda function in place of Load Balancer and EC2 instances (e.g. in an Auto Scaling Group), as illustrated below:

Both API Gateway and Lambda scale automatically to support the need of application workload. It assumes the role of logic tier in three-tier architecture but requires minimal maintenance work. For presentation tier, AWS has serverless alternatives such as CloudFront, S3. For data tier, AWS has serverless alternatives such as Amazon Aurora for relational database and DynamoDB for NoSQL. However, the “no request, no pay” model for Lambda does not apply to the data tier in serverless architecture.

Whilst this paradigm benefits small shop IT who wants to minimize infrastructure cost, it has downsides. There is no ability for infrastructure optimization. Since you do not manage where the code runs, client may have concerns over security (e.g. multi-tenant runtime). As business grows, keep using Lambda can result in technology lock-in. Also, a less used application usually requires warm-up time. A code start (downloading the code and preparing the environment behind the scene) can take 100ms to over a second.

Conclusion

PaaS attempts to help startups simplify the “grunt work” of IT operation. Serverless takes it even further. The semantics of serverless computing is confusing and the Wikipedia page acknowledges it as a misnomer. The nature of serverless model, is the cloud users delegate server capacity management to cloud platforms. The users don’t need to manage servers, VMs, instances, containers, etc on their own. In a previous post, I discussed the ability to scale to zero, which is just one of the many enabling technologies of serverless. Also, “no request, no pay” is neither an inherent nature of serverless model. Serverless service may involve storage (e.g. data service, S3, Aurora serverless) which incurs storage cost. There is a whitepaper on choosing the right AWS service to deploy your website or web application, with a decision tree.

AWS pioneered serverless with Lambda release in 2014 but competitor follows. In the Azure landscape, there is an entire suite of computing services from virtual machine to serverless (also with a decision tree in documentation). Azure’s counterpart for serverless architecture is Azure Function (released in 2016 for GA) with API Management. As for GCP, the serverless suite includes the event-driven Cloud Function (introduced in 2017) and Knative-based FaaS Cloud Run (introduced in 2019).

There are voices in advocacy of standardization of serverless model, and CNCF had since made minuscule efforts such as CloudEvents. The status quo, unfortunately, is anything but standardized.

Lastly, here is a table that summarizes the pros and cons of each computing service model.

Computing Service Model	Pro	Con
EC2	– Most straightforward and widespread legacy model – Legacy	– Ops tasks can be heavy (e.g. patch and vulnerability management of OS) – Utilization can be low
ECS	– Container orchestration is managed – Convenient to scale – Well integrated with other AWS services	– Limited advanced features – Vendor lock-in
EKS	– Highly scalable and flexible – Advanced, platform-neutral deployment tools available (e.g. Helm, ArgoCD, etc) – Custom configurations (e.g. operators)	– Significant operation overhead – Steep learning curve (especially for teams)
Lambda	– automatically scale – low ops overhead – pay per use	– limited choices of runtime – subject to latency due to cold start; yet warm start incurs cost – not suitable for long running tasks (batch processing jobs etc)

In summary, the Lambda-based serverless model is good for stateless server-side workload with short response time (<15s), tolerance of cold-start, no need for portability across platforms, and no complex package dependency.

Build and Manage Kubernetes Clusters

Fri, 23 Sep 2022 11:50:00 -0400

There are numerous options to build a Kubernetes cluster. If your company has a multi-cloud strategy, most likely you will have to deal with cluster creation on multiple cloud platform or on virtual machines on premise.

Most likely, the chosen cloud platform already make it simple for us. However, it is still important to understand what it really takes to build a Kubernetes cluster. In general, we need to figure out these tasks:

Decide where to host the computing infrastructure (i.e. Node) : on premise or public cloud;
Choose a Kubernetes release: either the vanilla release or one of the third-party distributions;
Install Kubernetes to the computing environment, and integrate it with the cloud platform;
Determine required add-ons (e.g. Istio or Linkerd for Service Mesh, dashboard utility, etc);
Deploy application workload to Kubernetes platform;

A public cloud platform provider usually can assist you with task 1 through 3, and partially 4, depending on the provider. If your Kubernetes resides on private cloud or on-prem environment, you can use a Platform solution such as VMware Tanzu or Openshift, which usually covers task 1, 3 and 4. There is no standard about what task these platform solution must address. Therefore it is important to have this list of tasks in mind in order to make a good comparison. I will discuss each of the tasks in this post.

Hosting environment

Nodes are the building blocks of a Kubernetes cluster. We need master nodes as well as worker nodes. In addition, a working cluster also requires storage, and networking infrastructure.

Public cloud platforms typically provides control plane as a service, obviating administrator’s effort to provision master nodes. For example, the control plane of Azure AKS has two levels of uptime commitment: a free tier of 99.5% SLO and a paid tier with an SLA of 99.95% (using AZs) and 99.9% (without using AZs). This uptime commitment applies to control plane only and do not apply to worker nodes. The management of etcd store is also a responsibility of the cloud provider, which frees up the cluster administrator from managing etcd store. However, they cannot access etcd store either. This is not very convenient because as the size of the cluster grows it is a common requirement to connect to etcd store for troubleshooting purpose.

The deployment APIs for public cloud allow the cluster administrator to define the instance size, count and availability zone for the worker nodes. They also automatically register the worker nodes to control plane so that the cluster administrators do not have to do so by themselves. As to storage, the public cloud usually provide some default storage classes based on their storage as service. For networking device, the cluster provision process automatically configures the cloud API so the cluster can manage cloud resources such as network load balancer.

With private cloud or data centre, we usually use virtual machines, or bare-metal servers. Cluster administrators will need to make their own control plane with master nodes. and install worker nodes and register them to the master nodes. The Kubernetes Installation section below will discuss this.

Kubernetes release

If you have to install Kubernetes, you have to think about the Kubernetes release being used. You can use the binary from official Github repository. For example, the release note of version 1.24.3 points to the change log file for download links to server binaries, node binaries. This is the vanilla Kubernetes release.

Apart from the vanilla release, many developers build their own distributions, based off forks of the Kubernetes project. CNCF has a page to keep track of certified Kubernetes distributions. Some of the distributions are open source and can be used for on-prem infrastructure. Here is a list of top players:

Distribution Name	Repo	Description
EKS Distro	Link	Used in EKS managed service or EKS Anywhere for on-prem infrastructure
AKS Engine	Link	Used in Azure Stack for on-prem infrastructure.
Google Kubernetes Engine	N/A	Used in GKE managed service only.
OpenShift Kubernetes Engine	Link	Community distribution (OKD, or OpenShift Kubernetes Distribution) is the open-source upstream.
Rancher Kubernetes Engine (RKE)	Link	still using Docker as container runtime. Supported CNI include: Canal, Flannel, Calico and Weave
K3s	Link	Lightweight distro without small resource requirement. Great for Edge, IoT, ARM etc
RKE2	Link	Originally named RKE government. Supports deployment via Cluster API. Supports containerd as container runtime. Supported CNI include: Cillium, Calico, Canal and Multus. Lightweight
VMware Tanzu	Link	VMWare Tanzu Grid and VMWare Tanzu Community

Above is just a very incomplete list of Kubernetes distributions. There are many more distributions that are not on this list, such as CoreOS Tectonic, Docker Kubernetes, Heptio, Mesosphere, Mirantis, Platform9, Stackube, Telekube. For full details of how each distribution is different, you will need to go over their documents.

With the selected distribution, we still need to deploy the binaries to the nodes. We can do this with a cluster management platform, or standalone installers. Cluster management platform can also help us with baseline configuration (e.g. IAM integration, CNI plugin), in addition to the binary installation.

Cluster Management Platform

These platforms are also sometimes referred to as container management platform.

For example, OpenShift container platform is a self-managed platform based on OpenShift Kubernetes Engine and can run on a variety of hosting environment, public cloud, or private cloud. The installation steps varies depending on the hosting environment. When running on public cloud such as AWS (aka ROSA), the public cloud only provides computing nodes and associated infrastructure. Many corporate with multi-cluster strategy use this option on public cloud to keep their Kubernetes cluster fleet consistent across cloud vendors.

The Openshift container platform also packages some useful open-source add-ons with corporate support, for example:

Red Hat’s strategy is to pick the most renowned open-source project in each domain and add enterprise support to it. However, for management portal, Red Hat developed its own Advanced Cluster Management tool for Kubernetes, and open-sourced it in 2020 in the upstream project Open Cluster Management.

Similar to OpenShift, VMware Tanzu also attempts to cover the domains, with a smaller product portfolio:

Service Mesh: compatible with Istio
Mission Control: management portal
Observability

Google Anthos is also a container platform. Their product line include, but not limited to:

Anthos Config Management (ACM)
Anthos Service Mesh (ASM, an Istio distribution)

SUSE, the developer of RKE, RKE2, and K3s) offers Rancher as multi-cluster management platform. Apart from the engines, SUSE also offers Lonhorn as a storage solution. However, they do not have offerings for service mesh or GitOps. So there is no doubt that Red Hat OpenShift has the most complete portfolio for Kubernetes.

There are also companies that only offers management platforms without their own Kubernetes distribution. For example:

Product capabilities in this category vary a lot and you should refer to their specific documentation to understand. You will probably see a stack chart from each of the platform provider (e.g. SUSE Enterprise Container, OpenShift, Tanzu, Anthos, Rafay) with all technology integrations.

Cluster Installation Tools

As we saw in the installation steps for OpenShift, they are highly dependent on platform. With public cloud, the provisioning process also applies only to a specific platform. Since Kubernetes Installation process is tedious, some tools emerged to help, for example: kubespray, kubeadm, kops and Cluster API. These are governed by SIG cluster lifecycle special interest group.

Here are some traditional options to install a Kubernetes clusters:

kube-up: the first tool to build cluster from 2015. It has been deprecated.
Kubeadm: a tool built to provide best-practice “fast paths” for creating Kubernetes clusters that are minimum viable, and secure. Kubeadm’s scope is limited to the local node filesystem and the Kubernetes API, and it is intended to be a composable building block of higher level tools. It is first released in Sep 2016. The high level configuration steps goes through initialization (kubeadm init), control plane (kubeadm join control plane), and node (kubeadm join node). Kubeadm does not integrate with cloud providers and it does not install addons (auth, monitoring, CNI, storage class)
Kubespray: runs on bare metal or VMs using Ansible for provisioning and orchestration. The first release was in Oct 2015. Since v2.3 (Oct 2017) kubespray started to use kubeadm internally. In addition to kubeadm, kubespray configures CNI, storage class, other CRI. It supports cloud providers and air-gap environment. However it does not support infrastructure management.

The options above are official options. You may use kubeadm and kubespray to quickly (i.e. in an hour) spin up clusters for education purposes. However, with their limitations, it typically requires a lot of efforts to build a production-grade cluster with the needed addons and integrations.

Apart from the official options, there are also unofficial tools such as kubicorn, which was first introduced in 2018 as a cluster management framework with modular support for cloud providers. However it appears to be short-lived.

In the next two sections, we introduce kops and cluster API, two most recent projects to install cluster.

Kops

The kops utility directly perform the provisioning and orchestration via API to the cloud deployment engine. Kops, with first release in Oct 2016, is tightly integrated with the unique features of the cloud providers (e.g. AWS: ASG, ELB, EBS, KMS, S3, IAM). However, kops is only CLI without controller-style reconciliation. It does not support baremetal or vsphere. It also bundles addons with fixed version.

When picking a tool to install cluster, we need to strike a balance between how much simplification the tool brings, and how many different platform the installer can work with. Kops appears to be such a good compromise. It works with a number of cloud platforms using different set of APIs, although most are in alpha and beta stages today. Here is how to install cluster on AWS.

Both kops and Cluster API have good momentum but they work differently. Cluster API was first released in Mar 2019, and is currently less mature than kops. However, it is declarative and may reflect the direction of where cluster lifecycle management is heading.

Cluster API

Cluster API focuses on following areas:

Manage cluster lifecycle declaratively
Infrastructure abstraction (e.g. computing, storage, networking, security, etc)
Utilizing existing tools (e.g. kubeadm, cloud-init)
Modular and pluggable: to be adaptable to different infrastructure providers.

It involves a number of CRs as illustrated in its diagram. We should be clear on the providers for Bootstrap, Infrastructure and Control Plane.

The biggest benefit is the controller pattern to manage the entire lifecycle of a cluster. This allows managing clusters with GitOps, and rolling upgrade of the cluster. It also allows for declarative node scaling, self healing and multi-cluster management.

The client utility for is clusterctl, and with that along with the manifest, we can create a cluster in a few commands. A lot of workflows are still in development but we can take a look at its quick start guide to get a taste of how it works. The installation steps vary a lot based on the environment and the cluster. Also it introduces the separation of management cluster and workload cluster.

Workload cluster is the target cluster being created, as per the manifests.
Management cluster is where you keep track of the workload cluster being managed. You can manage multiple workload clusters from a single management cluster. Note that this management cluster will store credentials about workload clusters, and may become a single point of failure.

Although Cluster API reflects a great initiative to standardize the provisioning of Kubernetes cluster, whether it will succeed has to do with the level of complexity. In the next section, we will get a taste of how it looks to deploy a Kubernetes cluster in a lab.

Management cluster vs workload cluster

In the lab, I use my MacBook to create a management cluster with KinD. Then we configure a workload cluster in AWS from the management cluster.

Cluster API Lab

Note that the steps here are based on the quick start guide on Cluster API document. Also, there is a bug with the AWS provider so the end of the lab will report a warning. The main purpose of this lab is to demonstrate how Cluster API is supposed to work, even though it still has yet to mature.

To start, I install clusterctl (the cluster API client utility), clusterawsadm (the utility specific for AWS) on MacBook, then start a simple KinD cluster.

curl -L https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/releases/download/v1.2.0/clusterctl-darwin-amd64 -o clusterctl
chmod +x ./clusterctl
sudo mv ./clusterctl /usr/local/bin/clusterctl
clusterctl version

curl -L https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api-provider-aws/releases/download/v1.4.1/clusterawsadm-darwin-amd64 -o clusterawsadm
chmod +x clusterawsadm
sudo mv clusterawsadm /usr/local/bin
clusterawsadm version

kind create cluster

So far, I installed the required utility and a KinD cluster on MacBook. Then I use clusterawsadm to create InstanceProfile, ManagedPolicy and IAM Roles required for cluster creation. The AWS region and access are configured as environment variables:

export AWS_REGION=us-east-1
export AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID=AKIAXXXXXXXXXXX
export AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY=J8ByduiofpwuisDjDoijOISDs
clusterawsadm bootstrap iam create-cloudformation-stack

This runs a CloudFormation stack to create the permission related resources:

Then I initialize the management cluster with the clusterctl utility, specifying AWS as a provider. I also need to assign the environment variable AWS_B64ENCODED_CREDENTIALS with proper value:

export AWS_B64ENCODED_CREDENTIALS=$(clusterawsadm bootstrap credentials encode-as-profile)
clusterctl init --infrastructure aws

Now I use clusterctl to generate the manifest for the workload cluster. In environment variables, I specify cluster and node sizes, SSH key name, control plane machine type and node machine type:

export AWS_SSH_KEY_NAME=cskey
export AWS_CONTROL_PLANE_MACHINE_TYPE=t3.large
export AWS_NODE_MACHINE_TYPE=t3.large
clusterctl generate cluster myekscluster --kubernetes-version 1.24.3 --control-plane-machine-count=3 --worker-machine-count=3 > capi-quickstart.yaml

kubectl apply -f capi-quickstart.yaml

At the end I tell the management cluster to create a workload cluster as per the manifest, by simply declaring the CRs. It will take some time for the cluster to create, and there are a number of ways to monitor the progress. You can monitor the log on the controller pods in their respect namespaces. You can also check the cluster status with:

kubectl get kubeadmcontrolplane
clusterctl describe cluster myekscluster

Currently there is a bug and the commands at the end will report as below:

Hopefully the bug will be fixed shortly. To delete the cluster, simply delete the resources in the manifest with kubectl delete -f capi-quickstart.yaml

Summary

There are numerous ways to build a Kubernetes cluster. Before deciding on the approach, I recommend having a full understanding of the hosting environment. This is because installation approach and hosting environment are still tightly coupled. This is the status quo and is not going to change in the near future. Both kops and cluster API reflects initiative to decouple the two but both are still in early stage and already facing growing complexity. Cluster API manages complexity with CRDs to abstract system resources and infrastructure, as illustrated here:

CRDs and providers to abstract system resources and infrastructure

The diagram is from the “Cluster API and declarative Kubernetes Management” white paper. Here is a stream with more about the same topic.